Sunday, January 13, 2013

The Honey Boo Boo of the firearms industry.

I call it Elvis Syndrome.

Surrounded by groupies and acolytes and yes-men, it can be easy to lose perspective. When your every utterance is treated as a pearl of wisdom, when there's nobody who tells you "no", you can start to buy into your own hype.

James Yeager has long been known for being willing to embrace controversy within the firearms industry, most recently by threatening to beat up the internet for calling him a coward, but largely remained a cipher to mainstream media and the outside world.

And then, in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting and right smack in the middle of a raging national debate about guns in the hands of the mentally unstable, he put up a red-faced and spittle-flecked YouTube video in which he threatened to "start killing people".

He deleted the original video, put out an edited one, and has now appeared in a third video with a man who seems to be his lawyer (put that man on danger pay, James!), walking back his earlier statements but the internet, like rock and roll, never forgets.

Here's my question: In his entire entourage of uncritical nuthuggers, was there not one single person willing to play Smithers to Yeager's Mr. Burns? Nobody to say "Uh, sir, maybe going on camera all bug-eyed and threatening to kill people isn't such a good idea when bug-eyed people have been running around killing people."

And no matter how much you don't want him on your team, he is on your team anyway. He is getting so much attention at HuffPo and DailyKos because to them, he confirms every stereotype they have of gun owners the way Limbaugh listeners think that all Democrat voters are dreadlocked hippies in #OCCUPY_DRUM_CIRCLE. James Yeager has sent the entire gun rights movement downrange with a camera.

Thanks a lot, James. Before you score another Own Goal, how about hiring somebody whose only job is to follow you around and say "No."? You need a Smithers in your life.

Look. Nutjobs like Yeager are going to be around throwing hand grenades into the room, always. Paying them mind is playing into their hands much the same way as the MSM does evil assholes like the one who shot up Newtown.

The real work is you and I contacting our representatives and making it known how we feel and how we want them to vote on any legislation that comes to them related to gun ownership. If you haven't called or e-mailed them, then you should assume the Yeager-ball speaks for you as far as your representatives are concerned.

It's kinda like the effect that "Doomsday Preppers" has on the reputation of rational "normal" preppers whom are just concerned citizens, that want prudent insurance policies. There is much difference between Tin Foil Hat and Rational Self Sufficient folks. The fault lies with those which cannot distinguish one from the other.

The folks I work with have been watching this latest drama and our opinion is the next episode of Gun Trainer Gone Wild will be that Mr. Yeager will be ordered to have a psychological evaluation by the state or his firearms will be confiscated till he proves he is not a risk to the general public.

Imagine if a guy like Yeager tolerated criticism from his followers. Nineteen times a day, it'd be "Jim, you idiot, for God's sake..."

If he weren't an idiot, that might be a Sign -- but then if he weren't an idiot, he wouldn't be all the time giving everybody cause to call him one.

And from the other direction, who's going to sign up as his follower anyhow? Either another idiot, or somebody who's new to the gun culture and doesn't yet know any better. By the time he's confident in his own opinions, his opinions will have been formed by years of rationalizing the behavior of a reckless jackass.

I actually see this as a bit of an opportunity. Decent gun blogs have been calling this guy out forever, we need to point that out to people. We were ahead of the curve on thinking this guy was a bit nuts. Police ourselves, others won't have to. I have yet to hear anyone from the gun crowd arguing that he should get his carry permit back. Instead of this being some big negative, point out that the laws are already in place to take the right away from a hot head who had done nothing more than run his mouth.

You ever read the comments to any of his YouTube videos. The people who drink the Yeager Koolaid run mightily close to homoerotic fandom.

The time he did the duel thing there were hundreds of commenters saying things like "Mr. Yeager, these idiots don't deserve someone like you!!!" or "I've taken your courses and these poopie heads calling you names don't know what it's like to be 'in the shit' like you were!!! YOU ARE SO AWESOME!".

I've seen less devotion in Justin Beiber fan clubs.

I can't imagine having that kind of a following. I prefer to basically be told I'm wrong every day of my life so that I'm aware that I am fallible and can correct my actions.

"I have yet to hear anyone from the gun crowd arguing that he should get his carry permit back."

I'll bite. He should. Why do I say that?

To start, I'll quote Weer'd Beard: "If James Yeager has committed a crime, arrest and charge him, then take away his rights that way." If he is truly a danger to himself or others, then there is a process for taking his right away for that, too. The state needs to use it, or give him his permit back. He's either a danger, or he isn't.

If he is a danger, simply taking away his permit does nothing - he still has guns, he’s still a free man, and he still can commit crimes. If he's not a danger, then he has the same right to carry a gun for his own defence as anyone else.

This current situation smacks of the same mentality behind the political punishment inflicted on TJIC (though somewhat less egregious) for using his First Amendment Rights to say something that offended the powers that be.

TN needs to either charge him with a crime, have him committed for a psych evaluation, or give him his permit back. Anything else is arbitrary political intimidation.

(And, yeah, I think Yeager will probably get reinstated at a hearing, at least as long as nobody discovered that he's been offering to duel people to the death. I'm ambiguous though: It's easy for me to say he should get reinstated, since it's not my signature on his chit. Nobody's gonna sue ME if he actually does 'roid out and cap somebody.)

True, he didn't, though the anti's behind TJIC's revocation claim he did, and may actually believe that. And the only reason I think Yeager's punishment is less egregious is that he actually gets to keep his guns, he just can't carry them, while TJIC lost his guns completely.

But it's the same mentality behind the punishment - "I think he said something threatening, so I'm going to take away his guns/carry permit in a manner that doesn't require me to actually prove anything."

Honestly, he's the hot head I fear. The one that the media will use to con the rest of the country to taking all of our 2A right. If he can't even keep his head enough to not post a video, first he had to film it, then upload it, and still did not think it unwise until the crap storm..... Lot of time to cool down, and yet he didn't. Tells me a lot.

first of all i think itd be best to throw out the extremists on all sides of this debate, as it would also be better to do to politicians. extremism never solves issues. then we need to do something big to prevent another newtown as much as possible. sad to say but true our schools are going to have to start resembling something more of a government building with bulletproof glass and metal detectors. im not sure armed guards will work - a strong bully could overpower one and get his gun. or a guard could go nuts. but they could be invaluable too. but we have to keep the guns as far away from the schools as possible. we have laws that require doctors to notify the dmv if someone becomes unfit to drive, why not for guns? but give people a chance to contest it so doctors cant go crazy. and require anyone who buys a gun demonstrate they know how to operate it safely? i truly wish we could go back to the days where everyone had a gun but we didnt kill each other with them. somewhere we lost our way. any ideas?

I'm not denying that. But I'm not saying the people behind either punishment are being rational about it, either. I'm just saying the mentality behind both is the same.

Sure, Yeager made a pretty clear (but generic) threat, but if he broke the law he needs to be charged. If they think he's a danger, they need to have him committed. In either case, just yanking his permit does no good (and could actually push him to carry through on his threat). But if it's neither, then there's no reason to yank his permit.

"Sure, Yeager made a pretty clear (but generic) threat, but if he broke the law he needs to be charged. If they think he's a danger, they need to have him committed."

In a state that issues a permit to carry a gun in public, even shall-issue states, somebody is signing their name to a piece of paper certifying that they believe you aren't going to do something dumb with it. Given his recent behavior, I'm glad I'm not the one being asked to sign off on his level-headedness.

The suspension and/or revocation process is detailed here; it is a matter of the legal code and the law doesn't necessarily have anything to do with logic. This discussion would be different if he lived in a state where he needed a permit to own guns, and different yet again if he lived in a Constitutional Carry state.

(PS: If they Googled him and discovered his dueling contract, then I'm not a damn bit surprised they yanked it. All the hotheadedness involving that, where he threatened to kill specific people and stated that he didn't care if he went to prison or not, are much better reasons to pull his chit than this latest one.)

Jake, he may not have broken a law, but I'm betting he violated the conditions he agreed to upon getting his carry permit, and thus had it revoked. It's not complicated, every state has conditions for holding a permit, you can violate those conditions without violating a law, yaeger did that.

If you want to debate the merits of the law, we can do that, but I know damn well what will and what will not cause me to lose my permit under the laws that currently exist. I'd like to keep my permit, so I behave. It's a choice I'm able to make because I'm not controlled by the day's emotion like yaeger is.

I hope this whole episode will cause some people to re-think their support of Billy Beck and the Threepers. True, they don't make scary videos that are easy to embed, but they're running around in "we're ready to start killing government officials at any time" mode.

Losing his toter's permit wasn't done as a punishment. In the black letter of the legal code of the state of Tennessee, you can have your permit revoked by the issuing agency if they deem that you "(c) Poses a material likelihood of risk or harm to the public;"

That's the way things are.

The way things should be is a matter for another discussion.

(I don't think anybody should need a carry permit anywhere in the U.S., so there wouldn't be anything to revoke. I'd also like a magic flying unicorn pony that could talk to me and be my best friend.)

In Mr. Yeager's particular case I was referencing the agency that rescinded his concealed carry permit. I assumed that would have been his local sheriff's department or similar local governmental functionary.

I wasn't clear in my statement. If Mr. Yeager's appeal goes through and appears to apply an unbiased application of local existing statutes to what he has created for himself...well and good.

If, on the other hand, he appears to be railroaded that would indicate something very different and worrisome to me.

I'm just trying to see my way through the fog. I feel a bit overwhelmed by the emotionally charged rhetoric that seems to pervade this issue and the plethora of knee-jerk reactions that seem to be coming from everywhere.

Actually issuing a challenge to duel stopped being a crime in Tennessee in the code revision of 1989.

He's committed two Tennessee offenses:

39-17-308. Harassment.

(a) A person commits an offense who intentionally:

(1) Threatens, by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication, including, but not limited to, text messaging, facsimile transmissions, electronic mail or Internet services, to take action known to be unlawful against any person and by this action knowingly annoys or alarms the recipient;

(1) Injures or threatens to injure or coerces another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another from the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee;

(2) Injures or threatens to injure or coerces another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another because that other exercised any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee.

Can someone point me to the original video somewhere? I can’t find it; it’s not on youtube anymore.

The only video I’ve seen is the news interview with the local reporter - hardly anything shocking. He says “If they come to confiscate my guns, I’ll shoot them.” And he doesn’t back down. I mean what does everyone think “From my cold dead hands” and “Molon labe” mean?

Tam, I think you would have written this post regardless of Yeager's video. Ed Schultz is going to find the material that supports his gun-grabbing inspirations. It was Yeager this time. Piers found Alex Jones.

Nonetheless - I like your writeup and it is a good reminder to us that we shouldn't post anything that can be snipped into a 5 second MSNBC clip.

A potential bright side is that ordinary people - those about whom the media know nothing and can only theorize their reactions - will see this clown and Alex Jones and ask "What the hell is the media trying to pull on us? This clown car is supposed to be the other side of the debate?"

It will call for the rest of us to wipe the spittle from our chins and not threaten to kill people, but I think we can do it. The best argument at the grass roots level against these idiots are normal, responsible citizens being good neighbors, who also own firearms. While the media fulminates against the faceless and monolithic NRA, people (in flyover country anyway) are going to look at those they know and say "He owns a gun, and I'm not afraid of him."

As much as I might be tempted to defend Yeager, a little, for saying something stupidly at a bad time, I'm not going to.

The man once decided that he didn't like the 100 year old Supreme Court ruling on the First Sale doctrine, so he rented several DVDs from me, microwaved them, mailed them back to me, and said "they didn't play; maile me new copies". He repeated his stunt.

It took several months to drag him through Small Claims Court (he claimed that as he was a deputy, if I sued him he would personally drive to Massachusetts and arrest me, he refused to sign for registered mail, etc.), but in the end he ended up coughing up triple damages for his fraud.

I had a xerox of the check pinned to the wall near my desk for a few years.

> "I have yet to hear anyone from the gun crowd arguing that he should get his carry permit back."

> I'll bite. He should. Why do I say that?

> To start, I'll quote Weer'd Beard: "If James Yeager has committed a crime, arrest and charge him, then take away his rights that way."

What Jake said. The modern tendency of the government to punish people for thought crimes via revoking "privileges" is bullshit. Yeager is a yahoo. If he's a criminal yahoo, then prosecute him. If he's not a criminal yahoo, then his right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed.

" If he's a criminal yahoo, then prosecute him. If he's not a criminal yahoo, then his right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed."

Every Tennessean's RKBA is infringed by the existence of the current HCP system rather than Constitutional Carry, but James signed up to play the DPS's game by the DPS's rules, and then broke them, so they took his ball and went home.

(I'll also point out that staghounds, whose job it is to know such things, pointed out two crimes that the State of Tennessee has not charged him with, despite all of us who had access to his various internet ramblings witnessing them with our own monitors. Apparently threatening someone with bodily harm or death for exercising a Constitutionally-protected right is looked upon rather dimly by the Tennessee legal code. James should put a sock in it before someone files a complaint.)

> Every Tennessean's RKBA is infringed by the existence of the current HCP system rather than Constitutional Carry

100% agreed.

> but James signed up to play the DPS's game by the DPS's rules, and then broke them, so they took his ball and went home.

What do you mean "signed up to play"? Do you mean "used the best means available GIVEN the unconstitutional rules"?

If so, then this sentence works equally well under, say, the Soviet Union: "Sure, it would be better if we had free speech, but we don't...and Yuri knew that when he published his book via the State Publishing Factory #12. So now he said something naughty about the Party and can't publish any more? Well, he signed up to play the Party's game by the Party's rules, and then he broke them."

I mean, yes, it's a 100% valid DESCRIPTION of what happened, but it's not in any way an excuse for the state's outrageous behavior.

> (I'll also point out that staghounds, whose job it is to know such things, pointed out two crimes that the State of Tennessee has not charged him with

Selective prosecution is also a huge problem. If we are all committing two felonies a day (or whatever the number is) and the powers that be prosecute us all for them, then the system will be revealed to be a joke. On the other hand, if we're all just racking up these imaginary felonies and the government can find absolutely any person on the continent and prosecute them IF THEY WANT TO, then the system is no longer about crime and punishment, but has become about annoyance-and-discretion and punishment.

Only physics problems and Ayn Rand novels start out with the sentence "Assuming a frictionless environment..."

CCWing in TN without a toter's permit is a misdemeanor, and having to actually use a weapon in self-defense is an affirmative defense to the charge of going armed. Speaking as a former resident of that state and knowing the choice I made, I find myself unmoved by this line of reasoning.

> Only physics problems and Ayn Rand novels start out with the sentence "Assuming a frictionless environment..."

Tam, I'm ** NOT ** assuming a frictionless environment. I understand the laws on the ground.

The thing I'm differing with you on is not the description of what happened, but on the apparent acceptance of what happened on your part (and even there, I don't think we're at all far apart). I just sort of dislike the phrase "he chose to play by their rules". No, he didn't. He HAD to play by their rules because that's the only game in town.

Change the phrase "he chose to play their game to their rules" to "unfortunately those were the rules", and we're in violent agreement. It's just that the former phrasing seems a bit dismissive and makes it sound like James was the one who chose to opt in (e.g. "well, he DID go to the country club restaurant in a torn Budweister t-shirt despite the fact that they require jacket-and-tie...").

He's a mess and the sooner he fades out of limelight, the better. He can't handle criticism. He fears his own inadequacies and thus surrounds himself with yes men. Some people's greatest purpose in life is as a bad example.

If it wasn't Yeager, it would have been someone else. If they couldn't find a Yeager. They would have invented one. I think we need to stay focused on one thing: Winning. The left is out of control and is acting not as if they just won an election, but as if they just won the final election. Think Hugo Chavez with a first world country at his disposal.They have overextended themselves and if we're smart we will look at this as an opportunity to defeat them in detail. Write. Call. Join. Donate. Make sure that their great-great-great grandchildren will be afraid to whisper about us a hundred years from now.

Duelling ain't so bad. Prayer and my Pastor's exhortations to the contrary, if I still had my inheritance I would use some of it to buy some plane tickets to Paraguay (the only place it's still sorta-legal) for m'self, my second, and my surgeon, to have it out with the person I refer to as my ex-brother.

Yes, he cheated me, quite badly, and there is nothing the Law can do about it. I would be willing to take my chances, to have a chance at him